Review History

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 9th, 2018 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 22nd, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 23rd, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 25th, 2018.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 25, 2018 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for addressing critical points raised by the reviewers.

Download author's response letter - submitted Feb 23, 2018

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 22, 2018 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address all critical points raised by the reviewers. Note that Reviewer 2 has placed all their comments in the attached document

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

General comments

There are quite a few grammatical errors throughout the paper. These errors, especially those in the abstract make it difficult to follow the paper at times.



Minor errors

1. Line 291 typo: astrocyte
2. Line 234: Specify which software
3. The "internal control" on figure 1D needs to be clarified
4. Figure 2B is too wide
5. Figure 2D's low resolution makes it difficult to see the scratch assay
6. No scale bar for figure 2D
7. The Y axis for the figure 2D should probably be Time (hr)
8. Figure 2C has two graphs which share the same Y axis title "Conditioned media". It maybe better to title them " conditioned media from LS cells" or something like that to differentiate the two.
9. No Scale bar in Figure 3 images
10. Adjust the size of Figure 3 graphs
11. No Scale bar for Figure 4 images

Experimental design

The experimental design is appropriate.

Validity of the findings

Statistics mentioned are limited to identifying if the data have a statistical p value of less than 0.05. The P values should be mentioned and the data whose p value is below 0.01 or 0.001 can be highlighted

Comments regarding the discussion

While the cited Bussolino, Mantovani & Persico review article indicates that the angiogenesis involves changes in morphology, it does not mention EA cell line used in the manuscript. Is there any other reference that can show evidence that EA tube formation can be used as a model for the formation of new vasculature?

Is there any evidence that NO levels may affect the proteins detected in the secretome (Figure 5)? Or are they independent

Cite this review as
- submitted Feb 9, 2018

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.